The Budget Committe - the political campaign
Mr. Dormody has now opened his first salvo in the BudComm campaign season with his new website. Like anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of the campaign, I have my thoughts about it. And yes, you will soon know of them.
However, before I do so, let it also be known that of the eight candidates running for the three open positions, I am endorsing (in alphabetical order) the following:
These are fine menof a conservative philosophy and are deserving of my vote as well as yours. Bill has shown over the years that he is truly watching out for the taxpayers of Gilford. Doug has been the foremost in the effort to keep the rise in government growth in check during his first year on the BudComm. Terry, via his Letters to the Editor, has shown that same conservative streak by not only attending many of the BudComm meetings this year but also by his willingness to write Letters To The Editor knowing full well the heat he may face for expressing his views.
- Doug Lambert
- Bill Philips
- Terry Stuart
As opposed to Mr. Dormody, whose only Letter (that I am aware of) concerned itself with how the BudComm was perceived – as opposed to what it was trying to accomplish. I commented on that Letter here – long on discussion of civility but not much on the actual functioning or tasks at hand.
I guess that will be the voters choice – style versus substance. Mr. Dormody and those other candidates that espouse civility over getting something done. Let's face it – it seems that at least Mr. Dormody's campaign is founded on this single issue, as his website states:
We need to work together to move the town forward, instead of driving wedges between this group and that group in order to further the political goals of a few.
Let's discuss this, shall we, as while it may seem to be just a single sentence on the site, it speaks volumes as to what this campaign will be about.
Take the phrase “need to work together”. At first blush, it seems to be innocuous enough. Hey, what's wrong with that? Well, immediately it brings to mind the phrase “go along to get along”; we should agree only to disagree on the small items, as going to the bigger ones would mean that we REALLY disagree, right? It seems that this is the crux of the matter – that the members of the BudComm must agree with each.
Yet, that immediately means that no major item or philosophical areas can be debated (for then we are not working together, right). Unfortunately, that would all but muzzle BudComm discussions, as then, we wouldn't be together, right?
What is the core matter here is that there are two very opposite views of government and their impacts on the local cost of government. And these two opposing views will engender debate - some of it "lively" bordering on “raucous” – and it seems to be anathema to Mr. Dormody's sense of style.
Next - “Moving the town forward”. Well, that assumes a few items not necessarily in evidence, with a major assumption is that the town IS headed in the right direction. Which means that if someone is in disagreement with that assessment, they are wrong. No, I don't believe that the Town is off-track at the present time (as opposed to, perhaps, the School Board). Yet, careful oversight is needed to ensure that it does not.....more later.Now, to “labels”, which Mr. Dormody is already tossing around. In his attempt to make civility his main thrust, he has already slandered / libeled / insulted (to use a few words aimed in our direction) us! By insinuating that we are driving wedges, that we are trying to further the political goals of a few, he demonstrates a few things.
First, that he either dares not or cannot bring himself to name names. Why? Well, first thought is that he would have to defend his allegations. So I ask him outright:
It is all so easy to toss words out, like those of Mr. Buckman and Mr. Arel (hey gentlemen, inform us please by outline how the BudComm was unable to accomplish it stated raison d'etre - after all, you both have said or implied the BudComm failed this year). I ask Mr. Dormody to let us all know what those wedge items are?
- What are those wedge items?
- Who are those “few”
- And what are those political goals?
And let's us know - are we the the butt of your ire? Are you looking to score points just because we talk and talk and talk....and disagree with you? Please?
The last is rather simple. There are two types of people in politics. The first is someone that wishes to be someone, that gets part of their identity by being part of one group or another. The other is kind of person what wishes to accomplish something – gee, a goal! Goals are good as they set a target to meet and set in motion ways to get there. It just seems that it is all the rage to paint them as “political” if you disagree with them.
Anyways, go ahead Mr. Dormody, tell us what our "political goals are" in running for the BudComm and how you disagree with ours - in detail!
I'll even help you out, as mine is simple: watch out for the common taxpayers by trying to slow the rise in government growth (thus the resulting tax bite) to come as close to the rate of inflation (plus a smidge more). Simply, it is to protect the little guy, and that's it.
I'd love to know from you, Mr. Dormody, what my other "political goals" might be....I'm listening!
And since Doug and I believe in the same thing, and Mr. Dormody disagrees with us, what do you, the reader, believe his might be?
Taken all together, I get the impression from Mr. Dormody that everyone needs to be in a Kumbayah frame of mind when serving on the BudComm. And that is his main concern.
